In the movie twelve angry man, after the twelve jurors listened to the facts in the trail, the judge gives her instructions to them. The judge told them that the man could face the death penalty if he found guilty. The 12 man gather in a stifling hot room to have a concluding about the case. They start arguing and adding their own experience, culture, and understanding of people's motives as a way of reconsidering the facts. Although all the jurors had listened to the same stated facts and they were in the same situation, each one of them interprets the facts differently. This reflects the differences in people and the different ways that we view the same things.…
Any jury trial is bound to have some sort of conflict involved when coming to a verdict. The portrayal of a murder case in the movie, 12 Angry Men, involves many different examples of conflict, as well as the approaches to conflict used by different characters. Almost every conversation in the film involves conflict, since the characters are all debating whether or not the boy being tried for murder is guilty or not, but there are a few scenes in which different types of conflict and different approaches to conflict seem to stand out.…
In 12 Angry Men by Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose a young man charged with the murder of his father, is in the hands of twelve men all with entirely diverse views. After hearing, the case the jurors go into discussions. Eleven of the twelve men are convinced that the boy murdered his father. However, Juror #8, Davis (Henry Fonda). Doesn’t necessarily believe the boy is guilty, rather wants to explore the evidence and discuss the trial further. Davis, was the most important juror in Twelve Angry Men for a number of reasons. First is that when all the other jurors voted guilty without even thinking about their decisions, Juror #8 suggested that they talk about it for a little bit before jumping to conclusions. When asked if he thought the boy was guilty or not guilty, he said, “I don’t know.” This shows that he hadn’t decided one way or the other. When asked why he voted this way, he replied, “It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This shows that he wanted to talk things over with the other jurors before he makes a decision. Even when some of the other jurors got mad and started arguing with him, he stayed composed and tried to work things out in a rational manor. Later on he said, “I just want to talk for a while.” This is more proof that he wanted to discuss the issue. Secondly Juror #8 re-enacted scenes from the night of the murder in order to prove his points. The third reason is that he convinced Juror #9 to change his vote to not guilty. This was a vital step because it added question and doubt to the other jurors and made it acceptable to change their minds as well. This was important because if no one changed his or her decision in the second vote, Juror #8 said he would change his vote to not guilty. However, Juror #9 did change his vote giving Juror #8 more time to talk about the case. Juror #9 said, “He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more.” By convincing one…
The best critical thinker in 12 Angry Men is Henry Fonda’s character, Davis or Juror number eight. Davis really supported and stood by all of his decisions and examined the evidence thoroughly. He not only looked at the situation through his eyes, but also through the young boy’s and witnesses spectrums. Davis was in no hurry to decide, which gave him time to really sit down and weigh out all the options and proof or non-proofs. He also did his own research by going to the boy’s neighborhood checking out the environment and purchasing a similar knife that was used in the murder, that was supposedly a one of kind and could not be purchased everywhere. By purchasing the knife Davis proved reasonable doubt of the situation which made most of the jurors want to hear more and think their decision thoroughly. When taking a second vote Davis suggested the option to vote differently by using a secretive ballot, so know ones name would be attached to their vote, which made a huge difference. This allowed one person to change their mind and not feel pressured or embarrassed to display their true feelings on the case.…
The art of persuasion have been the subject to change over the decades as people change and adapt to the events and situations that are happening around them. There are three ways of knowing that act as a tool and are at the base of persuasion: emotion, language and reason. These ways of knowing are used extensively around us, in commercials, political speeches or in a trial advocacy. Used as tools for persuasion, emotion hinders the pursuit for truth, while language and reason advance the the search for verity.…
12 Angry Men is a story of twelve jurors responsible for deliberating and deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. Although it seems to the jurors that the boy is unquestionably guilty, one juror (Juror 8) speaks out against the comfortable groupthink of the other jurors. Juror 8, Henry Fonda, approaches the issue from a teamwork point of view, and over and over again gains acceptance his views as he calmly and realistically discusses what he believed are inconsistencies in the case. This movie is an excellent example of how one person standing up against popular groupthink can, in fact, influence the rest of the group to his way of thinking and help them overcome The Spiral of Silence Theory. There are also many underlying issues of power and control/leadership throughout the film, resulting in multiple conflicts and confrontations.…
Throughout the years of America, we had many juries during criminal trials to decide if the defendant guilty or not guilty. In the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men shows the best representation of American jury system and how people change their minds. 12 Angry Men shows that personal feeling get in the way in their votes. The movie is about how 12 jurors decide the fate of young boy that persumed he killed his father, while during the initial vote only Juror 8 raised his hand not guilty. Then throughout the movie and script each of the 11 jurors for various reason change their votes to not guilty. The 12 jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty through character flaws, positive personality traits, expertise on the evidence, and pattern of behavior.…
You are sitting in a small, not very well ventilated room that has no air conditioning. You are sitting alongside eleven other overheated, uncomfortable, impatient men. That sounds rather unpleasant, right? Perhaps the last place you would like to be. Imagine how the jurors may have been compelled to hurry and reach a conclusion for the young boy’s life they were debating on. What if, these men were seated in a well-lit, cool, comfortable room, with decorations and armchairs… Would they have reached a different conclusion? Or maybe the same decision, but in much fewer hours.…
The plot of 12 Angry Men revolves around the murder trail of a Latino boy who is accused of killing his father. The conviction of the boy would mean a death sentence and the destiny of the boy's life is in the hands of twelve male jurors of ranging personalities. The case seems open and shut with a murder weapon and several witnesses to place the boy at the scene of the crime. For eleven of the jurors the decision is apparent that the boy is guilty but for one juror, Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda), the boy's life should entail some discussion to eliminate any reasonable doubt the jurors may have. As the film progresses the personalities of the jurors become apparent and many underlying issues influence the guilty decision chosen by the majority of the jurors. The underlying issues are the complexity of the personalities of the jurors and the reasons why they have the motivation to feel and act the way they do. As the case unfolds further, more is learned about each juror individually. The personalities range from being a short-tempered loud mouth to a straight- laced accountant who never breaks a sweat. As the movie progresses much more is learned of the characters that exposes the intricacy of human nature and people's different personality traits. This film is an excellent example of movie making that does not require elaborate sets to entertain the viewer. The majority of the film takes place in a jury room with the men never leaving the room from their deliberation responsibilities. The cast and dialogue make this film memorable and the film has some clear moral issues that are addressed. The main issue is that not everything is as it seems. With further analysis the understanding of a situation becomes more concrete enabling the men to make a solid decision that affects a young man's life. 12 Angry Men is a classic film that should not be missed.…
In the film Twelve Angry Men produced by Reginald Rose begins when a young teenage boy was on trial for murdering his abusive father. All the evidence and facts brought to the trial was against him, however, the twelve jurors had to make a verdict whether the boy is guilty or not guilty, and they decision would concluded whether the boy should or should not be sent to the electric chair. In process of making a verdict, the twelve jurors came together to reason and decide the fate of the boy. The verdict began with eleven guilty to one not guilty. Juror number 8, who voted not guilty did not believe on the evidence because, he believed that the murder weapon could be available to anyone, so he had purchased a look alike knife. Which made some…
Throughout my life I have been presented with opinionated questions to answer and a lot of the times I found it difficult to answer them without asking around a bit. Looking back on that I believe that is it impossible to remain truly impartial. You may start off with your own idea but one everyone else around you starts presenting their ides you may begin to change your mind. If it is something that someone believes in there is a good chance that they will have a convincing argument to back up their statement. Due to these kinds of things they may sway your mind and alter your judgment therefore you are no longer truly impartial.…
In 12 Angry Men the jury system is equal to the way the system is set up. Throughout the play in order to find “guilty” or “not guilty” each of the jurors have to speak their thoughts about the case. Towards the beginning of the play, the votes were 11-1, guilty, because most of the people didn’t care about what happened to the boy and they just wanted to get away from the trial and do their own thing. The only person who stood up for “not guilty” was the 8th juror. After the 8th juror explained why he thought the boy was “not guilty”, mostly everyone started to talk and explain why they though he was “guilty”. When the people were done explaining and talking about their thoughts, the 8th juror finally convinced 5 other people that the boy…
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” is a film about twelve jurors in a murder trial deliberating the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt. All of the jurors come from very different backgrounds and see things in very different perspectives. This essay will be analyzing the group discussion that was dramatized in the film. The issues that will be brought up in this essay are leadership, participation, climate, conflict, and argumentation.…
The story begins after closing arguments have been presented in a homicide case, as the judge is giving his instructions to the jury. The twelve men must determine, unanimously, whether the accused is innocent or guilty of the charge of murder. These twelve then move to the jury room, where they begin to become acquainted with the personalities of their peers. Throughout their deliberation, not a single juror knows another by his name. In a preliminary vote they are startled to find that one juror has voted "not guilty." Many of the jurors are amazed and disturbed because Juror #8 (played by Fonda), the lone dissenter, does not see the "open and shut" nature of the case. Juror #8 maintains that he has a reasonable doubt, and it is morally wrong and illegal to condemn a man to death if any jury member has a reasonable doubt. Although Juror #9 (played by Joseph Sweeney) believes that the young man is probably guilty, he is nonetheless impressed by Juror #8's conviction and shares his belief that the evidence should be reviewed thoroughly, and thus changes his vote to 'not guilty' in order to continue the discussion.…
Innocent until proven guilty means any person on trial is innocence until there is evidence to prove other wise.Most of American society feels that many people are quick to judge and are careless.I feel that every court trial is fair.However,I agree that a person is innocent until proven guilty…